Jehovah's Witnesses say state seizure of babies for blood transfusions 'didn't meet principles of fundamental justice'

Globe and Mail - Canada

Province denied parents fair hearing, lawyers say

MARK HUME

August 30, 2007


VANCOUVER -- The government was in such a rush to give transfusions to premature sextuplets last January that it denied the Jehovah's Witness parents their right to a fair judicial hearing, the Supreme Court of British Columbia was told yesterday.

Lawyers for the Fraser Valley parents, who can't be identified because of a publication ban, are asking Chief Justice Donald Brenner to make a ruling that the process followed by the B.C. Ministry of Children and Families in apprehending four surviving babies so that they could be given blood transfusions "didn't meet the principles of fundamental justice."

The six babies, which weighed only 700 to 800 grams each when they were born at 25 weeks gestation, struggled to survive from the outset and two died. The province seized the other four at the hospital, and took them away for transfusions before returning them to the care of the parents.

The father, who attended the hearing yesterday, said the four babies "are doing really well," and that he and his wife are caring for them at home.


As devout Jehovah's Witnesses, the parents opposed blood transfusions, and had been urging alternative medical care for the infants.

Chief Justice Brenner noted in his comments in court that no decision he could make would turn back the clock for the parents concerning the blood transfusions, but he acknowledged that his decision might have significance in similar cases.

"You can characterize this case as being not about religion at all, but about the right of parents to make decisions [on behalf of their children]," said Chief Justice Brenner.

Shane Brady, one of two lawyers appearing for the parents, agreed with that assessment, but said the court should weigh the importance of the family's religious views because it explains the "great emotional and psychological impact," of the government's actions.

He said the parents felt violated when blood transfusions were imposed on their babies.

The state moved quickly to authorize transfusions after two babies died and the hemoglobin levels of the surviving four began to drop.

But Mr. Brady said the government moved before the hemoglobin levels had reached a level that was of imminent medical concern.

He presented a chart that showed a wide range of views among doctors over what hemoglobin levels are safe in premature infants, and said the babies had not yet fallen to the lower end of that spectrum.

"Certainly by medical standards, transfusions weren't necessary [immediately]," he said.

Mr. Brady said although there was "ample time" for the government to allow the parents to make a legal argument, authorities chose to authorize the transfusions without a judicial hearing.

When the parents went to court to challenge the apprehension orders after three of the children had been transfused, the government filed a withdrawal form to return the babies formally to the parents. That negated the parents' opportunity to make their arguments in court.

Mr. Brady said later that same day, only hours after leaving court, the government restarted the process and seized the fourth baby for treatment.

"The parents' main attack is on the ... process," he said.

"This is not a case saying a state never has a role," said John Burns, who is also representing the parents. "But state intervention must be justified."

Responding to a question from Chief Justice Brenner about what happens when the urgency of a medical situation comes up against the rights of parents to a fair hearing, Mr. Burns laid out the timeline of the sextuplets' birth and subsequent treatment.

He said that it is clear from the record that the government had planned for nine days to apprehend the babies, and that it did not hold a hearing during that period.

"There was a reasonable opportunity ... [but] the state acted to avoid a fair judicial hearing," he said.

The case continues today.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070830.BCSEXTUPLET30/TPStory/National